Don’t get too excited — these aren’t the top names for 2009. (If only!)

Why am I posting old news? Because I recently found a more complete version of the 2008 list that goes all the way down to baby names used in England and Wales just three times. So, the top-ranked names may be old news, but the rest are new. (New to me, anyway.) Here goes:

And now, just for fun, let’s compare usage in England to usage in America:

Name

# UK* Boys

# UK Girls

# U.S. Boys

# U.S. Girls

Avery

4

6

1,731

5,758

Harper

18

20

244

1,108

Mackenzie
Makenzie
Mckenzie

361
28
462

53
9
66

?**
?
?

4,425
2,048
2,258

Riley

2,201

63

4,076

5,701

Total***

363,000

346,000

2,150,000

2,060,000

*By UK, I mean England and Wales. Not an accurate substitution, I know. But “England and Wales” is just way too long for that spot.
**The 1,000th name on the U.S. top 1,000 was used for 192 baby boys. So the question marks represent some number between 0 and 192.
***Update: Kelly has astutely pointed out that raw numbers can be misleading. I’m not going to change the chart — I’m just too lazy — but I’ve thrown in some rough totals, for context.

I was surprised by the number of Paisleys I saw overall. Paisley ranked nationally for the first time last year (at 835th place), so if what I noticed is indicative of a larger trend, Paisley will definitely be appearing on the 2007 list as well.